Re: In the News: Tenn. AG: No constitutional concerns with

in article 1180363137.081303.252530@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
richard@xxxxxxxxxx at richard@xxxxxxxxxx wrote on 5/28/07 7:38 AM:

On May 28, 10:17 am, George Evans <georg...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>

Thanks for asking. It starts with a nearly useless story which only tells
what the interviewed inhabitants called the one they thought was the first
inhabitant. Next it says that the earliest inhabitant are believed, by whom
it is not clear, to be Polynesian. I decided that it was scholars. Next I
read that there is *considerable uncertainty* about the date of settlement.

Yes, but the uncertainty is over whether it was about 300 AD or few hundred
years later.

Uncertainty yields fuzzy borders. Let's see if your hard line at 300 is
justified.

Literature *suggests* 300, I assume by Polynesians. *Some* say 700 due to
speech patterns and charcoal assumed to be from forest clearing. (I remember
from Hyerdahl that the inhabitants say the forests disappeared because the
wood was needed for making and transporting the heads.) It seems unlikely
that the head builders would burn forests.

Why? Are you aware of the rate at which we are destroying non- renewable
resources? This seems pretty typical human behaviour.

But they had a tangible need for trees.

Then there is the ridiculous part about 1200 which hardly seems to give time
for all the heads to be finished before first contact.

300 years is not enough? Why not?

There is going to be a certain amount of time from land fall to a time when
production can begin, and it would start slowly. Then there is going to be a
ramp down at the other end. Maybe there's time but I'd be surprised.

So I threw that out.

On the grounds of incredulity, not evidence.

And now I'm thinking can an island only be deforested once.

Well, yes. Your point?

How do islands get forested in the first place, then?

And finally there is the noncommittal, "Any earlier human activity seems to
be insignificant, if it existed at all." Which seems a lot different than
Richards conclusion that there is, "no suggestion *whatsoever* for any
settlement before about 300."

It doesn't seem much different to me.

That's probably because you're used to making statements with absolute
certainty.

<snip>

Incas did not construct megalithic structures.

So who did build the structures in typical Inca style of engineering and
architecture which incorporate large stones and which have been dated using a
range of techniques to the early part of the second millenium AD?

Where? Give us an example of such a site.

They constructed normal stone structures. They had forgotten or never know
how to build with giant stones.

So how do you explain the fact that some of their structures contain giant
stones and are built in exactly the same way as other Inca structures?

You are being evasive. I don't think you have anything.

<snip>

What structures do you mean? And what Inka talked of their ignorance? And
who recorded this?

The megalithic sites at Sacsayhuaman,

The site at Sacsayhuaman is typical Inca architecture and has been dated by
archaeologists at some time after 1200 AD. What do you know that the
archaeologists don't?

How to distinguish shape and size.

Ollantaytambo,

Which is pretty typical Inca architecture, and dated to the early part of the
second millenium AD. What do you know that the archaeologists don't?

Physics.

and Tiahuanaco.

Which was built probably a couple of hundred years BC, and shows the
continuity of architecural styles and construction methods between older
pre-Columbian cultures and the Inca civilisation.

You are lost in the woods.

<snip>

Machu Picchu is built with dinky stones by comparison. It is not a megalithic
construction.

The fact that it's on top of a freaking mountain may have something to do with
that! It's method of construction and architecural style is indentical to that
of other Inca structures, including Sacsayhuaman.

Have you looked at pictures of each site? Did you ever play with blocks?
Incan architecture used uniform, relatively small blocks. And the rugged
terrain didn't hamper the megalithic builders.

<snip>

I am positing a phase of human history pre-Palaeolithic

So that makes it over 2.5 million years old. Do you think that folk stories
referring to events 2.5 million years ago are reliable?

I think dates are going to have to be revised.

the remnants of which are these widely distributed megalithic constructions.

"Widely distributed" in time and space, with no evidence whatsoever of shared
culture.

Other than the use of stones of weigh in the 100+ ton range.

In Egypt there is a possibility that the two civilizations mixed.

Pity for you that there's not a shred of evidence to support that possibility
then, isn't it?

Except stones in the heart of the great pyramid that couldn't have been
dragged into position.

The innermost stones of the great pyramid (40-80 tons I believe), and the
stones used in the temple associated with the Sphinx (200 tons) were of
megalithic weight, the ones around the "kings chamber". But the rest of the
mound is normal stone construction (less than 2 tons).

Your point? The Egyptians were skilled at moving heavy objects around.

Do you understand the concept of gravity? Moving a 2 ton object requires
some special technology. Moving 200 ton objects requires a completely
different technology. This is obvious because there is an unfilled gap
between construction with dinky stones and construction with megaliths.

The tonnage is important because the large gap between normal stone

No it isn't. There's a gradation in the size of stones used, not a huge gap
between the normal size of stones and the very biggest.

Show me the evidence of that.

and megaliths is seen in several sites, the Andes,

...in the second millenium AD

Egypt,

five thousand years earlier

and Lebanon;

...three thousand years after the Egyptians

There is no recorded history of the construction with megaliths at Baalbek.
Therefore I have no idea what you are basing that date on.

and could signal the use of some as yet unknown energy system.

And the use of a time machine apparently.

Why are you such a dork about this. Baalbek is pretty clearly going to
require another energy source other than manpower. You can't line up enough
men along rope lines and still make corners, and you can't get enough men on
a face in order to nudge blocks into place. These blocks are laid right up
against each other, not just on top of each other. Your going to have to
*push* at some point.

<snip>

Stonehenge is bad enough.

That will come as news to the archaeologists who have studied it. We have a
pretty good idea of how it was built, how the stones were shaped, how they
were erected, the various phases of construction, the culture and economy of
the people who built it, and its religious function.

Try reading "Hengeworld", written by my old friend Mike Pitts - I was in the
same A level archaeology class as he was about 40 years ago.

Most archaeologist consider Stonehenge to be a curiosity, one step away from
crop circles. What is Mike Pitts doing now?

Also these site don't come with any artifacts.

This will come as news to the museums which are packed with the artefacts from
excavations of Stonehenge, let alone those packed with artefacts from ancient
Egypt.

I may have spoken too hastily. These sites don't usually come with many
artifacts.

They generally
seem to be from around 3000 BCE.

So:
Easter Island statues - between 1200 and 1500 AD
Stonehenge - between about 3100 and 2000 BC
Egyptian pyramids - between about 2600 and 2100 BC
Tiahuanaco - about 200 BC
Inca Architecture - 1200 to 1500 AD
Baalbek (that's what your "Greek" (actually Roman) temple in Lebanon
is called) - about 200 AD

All these dates are a joke. And it's not the temples at Baalbek, knuckle
head, it's what the temples are built on. The platform was built a long,
long time before 200 CE.

How do you get "around 3000 BCE" from that?

And do you think that the Paleolithic started after 3000 BCE?

Yes I do. Learn to take a chance once in a while.

<snip>

Like I said, archaeologists just don't seem to know what to do with this.

You mean archaeologists tell you that there is no scrap of evidence to support
the assertions of the con-men who make a fortune by selling sensationist books
to an ignorant public?

OK, Richard, you're getting a little annoying. So, I am going to ask you to
attempt a plausible explanation as to how you and as many people as you
need, would move a 1,000 ton block of solid rock.

While you're thinking I am going to play with some numbers. I am going to
say it takes 10 men to handle each ton. That means 10,000 men for the job.
Lets say we use four rope lines, that's 2,500 men per rope. Now placing the
men 5 feet apart on the rope gives a rope length of two and a half miles.
Since the task is to get these to the top of a hill, I guess you will have
to stretch the line up the hill, over the top, and down the other side, and
then out onto the plain on the other side. You can tell your workers to pull
hard whenever their feet are touching the ground otherwise just hang on.

Then, when you get it up there, you have to position it. This will have to
involve pushing remember. Good luck.

<snip>

precisely built

Nonsense. Stonehenge is not "precisely built".

Stonehenge is not megalithic builder site. Get it straight.

with stones so large it would tax our civilization to duplicate the task.

Our civilisation would have no problem in undertaking such a task if it was
economically feasible. However, we do not build large structures from large
stones because it is an ineffient engineering solution.

That is not the impression engineers and architects get when surveying the
sites.

IIRC the largest megalith ever attempted was 45,000 tons. It is at
Ollantaytambo, and is upside down, like they failed.

The source I have read do not refer to stones at Ollantaytambo of more than
couple of hundred tons. Where do you get such information from?

I am not certain about this so I will have to find the book again.

Just to boggle your mind a little more, let's take the stones used to build
the Sphinx temple at 200 tons. The largest cargo containers with maximum load
weight 30 tons.

Are you suggesting that the Ancient Egyptians used cargo containers?

An Abrams tank weighs 60 tons.

Are you suggesting that the Ancient Egyptians used tanks?

A C5 can carry two tanks, so airborne transport is completely out even one
block at a time.

Are you suggesting that the Ancient Egyptians used airbourne transport?

No, no, and no. But you better start suggesting something.

I think the largest load ever shipped by rail was 475 tons on a specially
made car, so we could transport these two at a time, I mean one train per 2
block, by rail. Remember each block weighs more than three tanks.

So now you are suggesting that the Ancient Egyptians used railways?

Well, they had to use something substantial.

So the transportation is doable. But just up in Lebanon there is a Greek
temple

Roman, actually. It was built around 200AD unde the Emperor Septimus Severus,
and its construction is commorated on coins from that time.

built on an ancient platform

No, the temple was built in two stages. The platform on which it was built was
not "ancient".

Yes it was, Richard. The Romans have no record of where it came from.

made of quarried and transported blocks weighing 800 to 1000 tons, one was
left in the quarry weighing 1200 tons.

Presumably because in this instance the Romans, who were excellent engineers,
overreached themselves. Mind you, they started to use concrete at around that
time so they may have abandoned it because better technological solutions were
available.

THE ROMANS DID NOT BUILD THE PLATFORM.

That's going to require a special railroad composed of multiple tracks or a
shuttle transporter or something similar.

The Romans were skilled roadbuilders, and also used waterways to transport
heavy loads. They also had a lot of highly trained and very fit manpower in
the form of their army (these were guys who could march 50 miles in a day
carrying a 60 pound pack, then build a fortification before they stopped to
rest).

There is no sign of a special road or ramp.

At 1000 tons you have a mass equivalent to 15 Abrams tanks all welded
together.

Why would anyone want to weld a load of tanks together?

It seems to me, at that point it's time to forget logs and dragging by
hundreds and hundreds of people on earthen ramps, etc.

Yup, it's barges, huge wheeled carts of the sort that the Romans illustrate in
their carvings, and lots of ox and manpower.

The Romans built very good roads.

Hey, I am impressed with the Romans, but they couldn't tough this job. One
complication I haven't mentioned is that the platform is built right to the
edge of the hill.

That's going to require steel

Why? The Victorians built massive structures using cast and wrought iron.

You are just going to need steel. Maybe a special railway with four or six
rails.

George Evans

.

Relevant Pages